However, by the standard of the novels appearing nowadays this is a book worth reading.
It's good to think that in 1945, just as now, people felt that the golden age of literature was behind us.
It's good to think that in 1945, just as now, people felt that the golden age of literature was behind us.
Not much has appeared since 1945 that really is comparable to the "golden age of literature" (that would be around 18xx-1940, I guess) --just a few exceptions to prove the rule, and tons of crap.
1984 itself, is a minor work, literary wise.
And you've completely discounted the post-modern literature of post-WWII, including Nabokov (!), DeLillo, Franzen, Morrison. Them's fighting words.
It mostly has political (in the broad sense) importance, not actual literary one. ("Brave New World" is even worse in this regard, but it also has the same kind of importance).
"""And you've completely discounted the post-modern literature of post-WWII, including Nabokov (!), DeLillo, Franzen, Morrison."""
I said there are "a few exceptions to prove the rule". Nabokov could be one, true, but surely not DeLillo, Franzen and Morrison, and not crap like Rothman, Pynchon et al.
*This is an example*
Obviously listing a bunch of names isn't going to prove the argument one way or the other, but I think it's a bit unfair to claim that all post-WWII literature is crap mod a few exceptions. Sci-Fi basically didn't exist before 1940.
I think it is more relevant to look at the 19th century vs. 20th century.
Um, seriously? What genre would you place either of The War of the Worlds or 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, then? That the books manage to get a lot of things wrong doesn't really alter the fact that they were early, very popular examples of science fiction (and there were a lot more dating back to before WWII, when SF really took off.)
Try and find something new. Don't wait for someone else to tell you what you should read because they said it was great. Find your own great works.